One of the men got out of the car and began beating the student with a
pool cue. The student pulled a handgun from his car, shooting and
wounding the man in the chest.

(snip)

The Palm Bay campus was locked down during incident, and emergency alert
messages were posted on the college’s website and sent via text message
to all students, faculty and staff telling them to remain in place with
doors locked.

A JUSTICE of the Peace turned the tables on a criminal, shooting and killing an unidentified man who, armed with a knife, forced his way into the JP’s St James home during the early morning hours yesterday.

Police reported at about 5 am, Justice of the Peace Bonnie Asgar Ali, who lives at the corner of Bombay Street and Kathleen Street in St James, was awakened by the sound of the front door of his home being violently shaken. Ali quickly grabbed his licensed firearm and cautiously made his way toward the front door.

At the same time, the door was forced open by a man brandishing a knife. As the man crossed the threshold, Asgar Ali fired a shot at the intruder who dropped the knife, clutched his stomach and slumped to the ground in the living room.

The Oregonian and Statesman Journal
have articles on a recent poll on gun background checks. Both mention
that the polling was done by Public Policy Polling. But both The
Oregonian and the Statesman Journal neglected to reveal anything about
Public Policy Polling.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) is described by The Nation
as “Washington’s leading liberal think tank.” The Nation exposes
political cronyism at CAP, and notes “CAP has emerged as perhaps the
most influential of all think tanks during the Obama era, and there’s
been a rapidly revolving door between it and the administration. CAP is
also among the most secretive of all think tanks concerning its donors.”

ARGYLE — School board members voted unanimously a second time
Wednesday to approve a controversial policy that will allow some
teachers, administrators and other staff members to carry firearms on
campus.

The new vote also authorizes some school board members to
carry concealed guns at board meetings or on school property, a
provision that was not spelled out in details provided by the school
district after the previous vote. A copy of the policy was not posted
until after board members voted on the policy last week.

Board President Kevin Faciane said the new vote was mostly “procedural in nature.”

This bill addresses several positive reforms. It eliminates the "legal theft" of firearms, and stops the wasteful practice of symbolically destroying valuable firearms for political theater.

Tomorrow, January 30 at 9:00 a.m., House Bill 2473 will be heard in the state House Federal and State Affairs Committee. Sponsored by state Representative Jim Howell (R-81), HB 2473 is important legislation that makes comprehensive improvements to the gun laws in Kansas.

If passed and enacted into law, HB 2473 would expand
Kansas’ firearms preemption provisions to open carry and prohibit
municipalities from implementing local ordinances relating to the
transportation of firearms. Whether you choose to carry concealed, open
carry or carry a knife for self-defense, HB 2473 would eliminate the
complex patchwork of gun laws that arise from local regulations.

Along with addressing firearms preemption issues, HB
2473 would ban the use of taxpayer funds for so-called gun “buyback"
programs. These programs are a waste of taxpayer dollars and have no
proven impact on crime reduction. Additionally, this legislation would
prohibit seized firearms not used in the commission of a felony from
being destroyed by law enforcement agencies. These firearms, so long
as they are in operable condition, would either be sold to a licensed
dealer (FFL) or donated to hunter education programs. HB 2473 would
also mandate that if a firearm has been seized by law enforcement and
the owner is acquitted of the charges or the charges are dropped, the
firearm must be returned to the owner within thirty days.

This comprehensive legislation also addresses permit
confidentiality by prohibiting county, city or municipal employers from
maintaining a database of employee permit holders.

Your NRA fully supports these improvements to gun laws
in the Sunflower State and will continue to keep you updated as HB 2473
progresses during the 2014 legislative session. Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your e-mail inbox for further updates.

CHILPANCINGO, Mexico – Hundreds of armed men belonging to community
self-defense groups occupied eight small towns near Chilpancingo,
capital of the southern Mexican state of Guerrero, and detained a dozen
suspected extortionists, a spokesperson for the vigilantes said.

The
action was taken due to the “federal government’s poor response” in
ensuring the security of the state’s inhabitants, Gonzalo Torres, a
coordinator of the Citizen Safety and Justice System, or SSyJC,
organization, said Friday.

The vigilantes said they seized
control of the towns, all part of the municipality of Chilpancingo,
because their residents are the victims of criminal gangs that extort
and kidnap business owners.

The SSyJC was founded in Jan. 4,
2013, in the town of Ayutla de los Libres to combat the criminal outfits
and has since extended its reach to communities located near the cities
of Acapulco and Chilpancingo.

“Our presence here is because
citizens in this area asked us to come, because they’re tired of there
being extortions, payment of protection money and kidnappings every
day,” Torres said.

(snip)

A federal offensive in that western state began Jan. 13 with an
attempt to forcibly disarm militias that arose to defend communities
from the Caballeros Templarios (Knights Templar) cartel, but after four
people died in a confrontation with soldiers, the Mexican government
changed tack in favor of cooperation with the vigilantes.

Mistrust
persists, however, and the militias, who get financial backing from
business owners tired of paying protection money to the Templarios, say
they will hand over their weapons and stand down only after the entire
cartel leadership is behind bars.

A trend is growing across the nation to restore the ability of public employees to protect themselves. During the last hundred years, the legal ability of public employees to carry defensive weapons has been eroded along with the rights of ordinary citizens. Originally intended to prevent minorities and immigrants from being armed, the philosophy of a disarmed population was put in place in employee codes at all levels of government, local, state, and federal.

Much of this was resisted by people with a long cultural affinity for arms, and, as with the general prohibition on concealed weapons, was selectively enforced against out of favor minorities. I recall my father taking a pistol along while working as a state employee in charge of a surveying crew in the 1960s. Even in the early 1970's, I organized informal pistol matches while working for a federally sponsored forest improvement project in Wisconsin that employed students during summer break. No one blinked or considered that it might be improper. This was three years after the passage of the infamous Gun Control Act of 1968.

As the decades rolled by, more and more employee codes were written with rules forbidding employees to possess firearms at work. Many of these were pushed as "model" codes that erroneously claimed to limit the liability of employers, based on non-existent evidence that restricting employee rights to be armed reduced workplace violence. People who pushed such policies never considered the possibility of people protecting themselves or that agencies that restricted employees from protecting themselves could be liable for those employees' protection.

With the success of the shall issue concealed carry permit laws across the nation, that trend has been discredited and reversed. Several states have passed laws to insure that employee second amendment rights will be respected during travel to and from the job, by insuring that employees can have legally owned firearms in their vehicles on company parking lots. Many private companies now allow or even encourage their employees to be armed. Some of the last bastions to prohibit their employees from exercising their second amendment rights on the job have been federal, state, and local governments.

The trend is for local governments to embrace those reforms. A recent article from Saline county, Kansas:

Employees of Saline County who wish to carry a concealed firearm for
personal protection must have a concealed-carry permit, as required by
law. Employees who wish to carry must keep the concealed firearm on
their person at all times. Employees also are prohibited from storing or
leaving a firearm in bags, coats, purses and briefcases while not on
their person.

Nor is Saline County the only county in the state to do so. In Harvey County, Kansas, from The Kansan:

Commissioners approved a change to county policy 6.16 in the
employee manual — the policy on workplace violence/weapons/concealed
carry.

Under the policy, non-law enforcement or
security personnel will be able to carry a gun with them if they have a
conceal and carry permit from the state. A copy of their permit must be
on file with human resources, part of the employee's sealed personnel
file.

MURPHY — Cherokee County leaders are taking North Carolina’s expansion
of gun rights a step further by allowing legal concealed weapons in most
county offices.Anyone, including county employees, may carry a
concealed handgun with the proper permit.

Cherokee county is not the only county in North Carolina to do so.

Alamance County, between Greensboro and Durham, also repealed its 1995
ban on concealed weapons in most county buildings in December, County
Manager Craig Honeycutt said.

"Our constitution tells us we should have this right and we should exercise our rights. It's our privilege as an American," said Phil Duckham, Jackson Co. Commisioner.

Duckham says right now, county employees can't have a weapon, but licensed carriers can bring a weapon in. He says if a county employee is threatened, they should have the means to protect themselves to the extent the law allows.

"People need to understand the average response time for police is 5 minutes. That means people have to fend for themselves until police arrive on the scene. It takes 3 minutes for an active shooter to create massive destruction. I believe any good, honest, God fearing, America citizen should be armed."Some people argue that a city worker may take another path and suddenly start shooting inapropriately. Blanchard stated, "Any person can go crazy at any time. If a city worker went crazy and started shooting, I would hope another armed city worker standing nearby would subdue that threat."

A law in Kentucky restores firefighters ability to have defensive firearms on duty. From usatoday.com, hardly a second amendment friendly source:

Additionally, because special districts are not covered under the
separate law that allows cities to ban concealed weapons, they also
must allow those with permits to bring guns into their buildings.

That includes firefighters on duty — something that has been met with mixed reaction among fire chiefs.

Bucking the trend is McHenry County, Illinois. Illinois was the last state to pass a concealed carry permit system, something it did after being required to do so by a federal court order.

In the wake of concealed carry taking effect in the coming months, the McHenry County Board is setting down rules forbidding employees who are not law enforcement from carrying handguns during their official duties....

At least one state lawmaker in Kentucky is looking to the future. State Representative John Becker (R-Union Township) has introduced a bill to restore the right to carry to most public employees in Kentucky. From cincinnati.com:

State Rep. John Becker (R-Union Township) introduced House Bill 236 that will allow all non-federal, public sector employees with a concealed carry license to carry into all non-federal and non-secured public buildings.

The following is a response from Tom Lambert to a bizarre attack on open carriers by Mayor George Heartwell. I do not think that "bizarre" is to harsh a term considering that the city is defending a lawsuit specifically for violating the civil rights of an man exercising his rights to bear arms under the federal and Michigan state constitutions. His speech would certainly be among the evidence that I would show a jury in deciding the case.

Mayor Heartwell, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to
some comments I heard you made earlier today in relation to gun related
violence and open carriers. I feel your excessive use of distortions,
duplicitous fallacies and ad hominem underscores the lack of strength in
what you are attempting to convey.

I have been working for quite some time now to educate, not only
those in this chamber, but also the people of Michigan. Much of my focus
has been on the lack of the ability of police to protect everyone. As
you adequately pointed out, harm can come to someone even with a
watchful officer standing ready in this room. Of course, once we expand
on that notion we are led down the frightful path of understanding what
would happen if a potential victim had to wait even mere seconds, or God
forbid, minutes longer for said assistance. So if calling 911 is okay
for people out in the city, why is it not okay for this room?

Though I doubt you will admit it, you have already acknowledged the
crime-deterring effects of not just guns, but carrying them openly. It
is after all why the GRPD carries their guns openly and why you have an
officer openly carrying his firearm at this very meeting, is it not? As
they say, actions speak louder than words and nothing detracts more from
your notion of too many guns than this officer sitting back there at
your behest and thanks with yet another openly-carried firearm.

Furthermore, in your statements, you pointed to a number of shootings
that have occurred so far this year. However, what you failed to
mention is that nearly all of them occurred in a “Gun Free Zone” much
like what you wish to turn these chambers into. You also failed to
mention all the lives, or some of those lives, were saved by
lawfully-armed responders. No one watches a leopard chase down a gazelle
and denies that the gazelle has the right to defend itself, but you
would seemingly deny that same right to other human beings. You seem to
think that the way to stop the leopard is to the cut the horns off the
gazelle – that by somehow making it easier for the predator, the
predator will somehow go away. This is folly. When you make it easier
for the predator, you get more predators, as your “Gun Free Zones” have
clearly demonstrated over the past few decades.

On the other hand, we have a very clear inverse trend of the number
of gun owners in this country and the number of violent firearm-related
incidents. You pointed to the number of firearms in the county that has
gone up almost double in the last 20 years while the number of violent
firearms-related incidents has gone down by almost two-thirds over the
same time: Extreme uptick, extreme down.

I have said many times that the facts do not concern you, and once
again you have proven me right. In referencing a recent road rage
incident in Ionia, you attributed it to “lax and irresponsible gun
laws." The truth, if you had bothered to pay attention, is that one man
defended his family from someone who wrongfully had a CPL because a
prosecutor did not charge him properly and the gun board let the man
slide. Would you have preferred the defender leave his family to defend
themselves?

When I sat in front of you in your office I specifically mentioned
proper prosecution using the laws we already have, yet you ignored me. I
reached out to you with something I thought we both could agree on and
it became abundantly clear that it was not public interest that you were
putting first and foremost.

My message is and has been one of education and understanding. Your
message is and has been a message of confusion, fear and bigotry. I want
more people to know the laws and understand them, where you want others
to be confused about our laws and afraid of people such as me without
first attempting to understand us. You tell me who the bully is there
and where the righteousness lies. Next time Sam Jones Darling (an LGBT
advocate who frequents commission meetings) is here, why don’t you ask
him how righteous his detractors claim to be.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

When former Congresswoman Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords appears today in Olympia to testify in favor of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control
measure being sold as a “universal background check” requirement, only
one question should be respectfully asked: How would adoption of this
measure have prevented the kind of thing that happened in Tucson in
January 2011?

That's the incident in which Giffords was shot in the head by a
gunman who killed six people and wounded 12 others, including the former
congresswoman. She will be accompanied today by her husband, former
astronaut Mark Kelly.

The question is a fair one. There is no disrespect in it. If Ms.
Giffords comes to Washington State to testify on behalf of a gun control
proposal, because of her personal tragedy and triumph, she ought to
explain how this measure would have prevented what happened.

David Kennedy, a renowned criminal justice professor and co-chair of the
National Network for Safe Communities, believes that places like the
1500 block of East 50th Street where Deontrey was killed, or
Central Avenue where two other Chattanoogans were shot around the same
time, aren’t necessarily bad areas. Good people live in those areas,
just as the overwhelming numbers of those who live in our inner city are
decent and law-abiding citizens.

(snip)

The same is true about people. “We now know that homicide and gun
violence are overwhelmingly concentrated among serious offenders
operating in groups: gangs, drug crews, and the like representing under
half of one percent of a city's population who commit half to
three-quarters of all murders.”

Read it once more: “ … under half of one percent … commit half to three-quarters of all murders.”

Gun-rights activists believe they will see the pendulum swing back in their direction this year.

President
Obama and his gun-control buddies were successful in pushing through
new restrictions on the Second Amendment in eight states last year.

But now, South Carolina has bucked the trend and moved to strengthen the right to bear arms.

Gov. Nikki Haley is expected to soon sign a bill, which passed the General Assembly
on Thursday, that allows for concealed carry in bars and restaurants.
Gun owners will still have to have a legal permit and not drink alcohol.

This is the first gun-related state legislation to be sent to a governor this year.

Have you ever wondered why you can't pull your pickup truck into the
parking lot of the Gillette, Wyoming, post office, go in, and mail a
letter -- without giving up your Second Amendment rights?

The answer is that a bunch of gun-hating legislators -- who are
terrified of the very thought of guns -- slammed through a law
prohibiting guns in any federal facility. It is now contained at 18
U.S.C. 930

The original law contained a provision, at subsection (d)(3), which
would allow you to carry your gun for "other lawful purposes" --
including, presumably, self-defense.

But, not surprisingly, the ATF and the other anti-gun denizens of the
federal government have read this exception out of the law -- by
executive fiat.

But the good news is this: On Wednesday, January 29, Senator Rand
Paul will offer an amendment, in committee, to the Postal Reform Act (S.
1486).

The amendment will allow you to drive into a post office parking lot
with your gun, and will allow you to carry it into the post office, to
the extent state law would allow you to carry that firearm in any other
venue.

Because the amendment will be offered in Governmental Affairs, a vast
percentage of the committee membership consists of conservative
Republicans and Democrats running for reelection in conservative states.
So there is a good chance that we can score a major victory for the
Second Amendment if you act now.ACTION: Please contact the senators on the committee
(listed below) and ask them to support the Rand Paul amendment allowing
Americans to exercise their constitutional rights in parking lots and
public areas in federal post offices.
You canE-mail the Senators -- or call them at 202-224-3121.

NOTE: You are receiving this alert because one of
your Senators is on the Government Affairs committee. Residents of
Kentucky should simply thank Senator Rand Paul for taking the leadership
on this issue. (See below.)

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

The above picture is going viral on the net. It shows a couple of members of Come And Take It of Fort Worth with some Girl Scouts. I talked to Kathy Perkins, who was there, and she told me about how it came to be taken.

Kathy says that the local chapter of Come And Take it was engaging in their usual act of civic education by taking a walk in the area. While they were doing so, they saw the Girl Scouts selling cookies. Feeling a little hungry, they decided to buy some of the cookies. The Girl Scouts were excited about the open carry of rifles and liked the idea of people exercising their rights. They agreed to a picture with the CATI members, which Kathy posted on the web. Someone, unknown to Kathy, grabbed the photo and it took off, going viral. Kathy is one of the founders of momswithgunsdemandaction.com. I did not find the picture on their web site, but I did find a notice that they are working on improving the site.

Myfoxdfw.com did a story on the picture, and the local Girl Scout council felt obligated to remind everyone that they do not get involved in political issues.

Girl Scouts is not a political organization and we do not advocate on
any position. Further, neither girls nor volunteers are allowed to
promote another organization in their role with Girl Scouts. When
working in an official capacity, both girls and adults are to uphold the
Girl Scout Promise and Law in all they say and do."

Even 50 years ago, the picture would not have been considered political. The equivalent guns of the day, M1 Garands and M1 carbines, were not controversial. You could buy them through the mail, and the government encouraged such purchases. A boy or girl scout troop that posed with adults holding such rifles would merely have been seen as picturesque. 50 years of infringements on second amendment rights have resulted in the current situation.

Kathy said that she has been subject to numerous personal attacks on the Internet because of the photograph.

This report comes from AP, with its strong bias against an armed populace.

The motion comes on the heels of two fatal shootings on college campuses
last week. A student shot and killed a 21-year-old teaching assistant
at Purdue University in Indiana Tuesday, and a 22-year-old football
player was shot during an argument outside a South Carolina State
University dormitory Friday. Sen. Curt McKenzie, one of the proposal's
authors, said Monday arming students and faculty could actually prevent
school shootings like this.

Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin allow
concealed carry on college campuses, while 23 other states _ including
Idaho _ leave it up to the colleges to decide. Twenty-one states ban
guns on campus.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TX (KLTV) -
An East Texas burglary suspect is dead after
homeowners found him rooting around on their property in the middle of
the night. The property owner was armed and confronted the burglar, who
then fought back. However, that fight didn't last long thanks to the
homeowner's watchful son who was standing 40 yards away.

"I meant to shoot one time and that was it. He was going to kill my dad," explains the son.

The
father and son pair are still together, because they didn't back down
when the unrelenting burglar came after them around 4 a.m. Tuesday.
Still, they say they've had enough attention the last couple of days and
have asked to leave their names out of their story.

Following what is becoming a national trend, legislation to prevent wasteful destruction of valuable firearms has been introduced in Mississippi by Representative Gary Alan Chism, Republican. The legislation, House Bill 139, prevents the wasteful destruction of firearms collected at gun turn in events that are conducted with the assistance of government resources. Instead, the firearms would be returned to lawful commercial channels and the money placed in the general fund of the governmental body that is assisting the turn in event, often referred to by the misnomer "buy back". The events are not "buy backs" because the people buying the guns never owned the guns before. From the bill:

74(c) Any resolution, ordinance or rule enacted pursuant75 to this section must require that any firearm received shall be76 offered for sale at auction as provided by Sections 19-3-85 and77 21-39-21 to federally-licensed firearms dealers, with the proceeds78 from such sale at auction reverting to the general operating fund79 of the county, municipality or other governmental body.

Several states have already banned the wasteful practice of destroying assets collected at such turn in events. In the Middle Ages, punishing objects was considered a deodand ceremony. Deodand is medieval term created to indicate an inanimate object that was found guilty of a crime.

Arizona and North Carolina passed similar measures last year. Many critics claim that such bills "ban" "buy backs", but they only require that the assets collected be sold instead of destroyed.

The guns are still taken off the street. They will be sold out of gun shops just like new guns, giving a choice to a person who wishes to exercise their second amendment rights. Many gun collectors now attend these gun turn in events hoping to obtain rare, historic, and collectible guns at a bargain price.

Indiana is considering a similar law this year. As the Indiana proponent of this years bill, Senator Jim Tomes, said:

“I don’t see why anyone would object to this because it benefits everyone involved,”

Monday, January 27, 2014

Much is unknown here. On pure speculation, the injunction could be because of a restraining order in a domestic case, a drunk driving charge, or something else imposed by a judge. It is unlikely that the homeowner is a felon, because that would be a violation of a statute, not an injunction.

Jacksonville police have judged that a homeowner who shot and killed
an intruder inside his house was justified in firing the shot.

But the homeowner, whose name has not been released, has been
arrested for a misdemeanor violation of injunction for having a firearm,
and was taken into custody Saturday afternoon, police said.

Members of Come And Take It Assemble for Their Rally
Image courtesey newswest9.com

The open carry rally in Andrews, Texas, went off without a hitch on Saturday, 25 January. The local newswest9.com headline was:

Gun Rally in Andrews Had Message of Education, Peace

Members of Come and Take It in Andrews, Texas
Image courtesy newswest9.com

This occurred in spite of the arrest of a member of the organization, Michael Keoghan when he was scouting out a route for the rally. In spite of the controversial arrest, Police Chief Bud Jones insisted that he supported the rights of everyone. From newswest9.com:

One thing is for sure, both police and "Come And take It" organizers had a peaceful, respectful day in Andrews.

"Come And Take It" has over 40 chapters across the state with rallies going on just about every weekend.

We have been going town to town educating not only the public but the
local police departments on laws that they haven’t had to enforce and
have forgotten. But what seemed strange earlier this year has become
commonplace amongst us Texans. Police departments everywhere are
stepping up and respecting our second amendment.

James Franklyn, West Texas Regional Director for "Come And Take It," said that they expect to work with police. From newswest9.com:

"It's in our mission statement that we work hand-in-hand with law enforcement,"

Perhaps Chief Jones and the Andrews police department will reciprocate in the future.

Michael Keoughan was exercising his right to bear arms in Texas last Wednesday (22 January). He is part of a Texas group of second amendment supporters that demonstrate that the second amendment means something by legally carrying rifles slung across their back. They openly state that they are educating people about their rights under the Texas and Federal Constitutions.

Before the Civil War (or War Between the States), Texas had a strong right to keep and bear arms clause in its constitution. After the Confederacy lost the war, the reconstruction government created a new Texas constitution. The new Texas constitution had a "soviet style" right to keep and bear arms. That is, they listed the right, but made it irrelevant by saying that the legislature could ignore it when they thought they needed to stop crime. The reconstruction legislature immediately made the bearing of arms illegal.

When the reconstruction government was kicked out, a new constitution was written and passed. It reinstated the right to keep and bear arms, but failed to completely remove the legislature's ability to modify it. They left in a phrase saying that the legislature could regulate the "wearing" of arms. The legislature never removed the reconstruction ban on wearing pistols or large knives.

That is why the right of Texans to openly carry rifles and shotguns is protected by the constitution, but open carry of pistols and large knives is not.

Come and Take It, the second amendment group that Mr. Keoughan belongs to, aims to restore the right to openly carry pistols and other weapons to Texans. It has held numerous open carry demonstrations around Texas, and is in the process of planning another for Andrews. Mr. Keoughan was checking out the rout of their rally when he was arrested for openly carrying his rifle strapped to his back. This is the second time that an Come And Take It member was arrested in Andrews for open carry. The Police chief, Jones, was notified that the rally would be taking place, and still says that he will support it.

The ruse that the police used to arrest Mr. Keoughan was "disorderly conduct". There is a provision in Texas law that defines disorderly conduct with a weapon as:

“DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly…(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.”

The problem for the police is that Mr. Keoughan and Come and Take It adamatly state that their actions are not "calculated to alarm" but are meant to educate. It is difficult to argue their point when the vast majority of people that they meet on the street are not alarmed. From newswest9.com:

"I had great interactions throughout the entire day until the police showed up," Keoughan said.

Police Chief Jones disagrees:

"We didn't know who he was, had no clue but we started getting a mass
number of phone calls," Chief Jones said. "By displaying the weapon, he
caused undue alarm."

Some people were alarmed. We do not know how many, or how alarmed, because from past experience with these events, the calls are often an inquiry asking if the open carry is legal, which is exactly the sort of education Come And Take It is attempting to achieve.

The Chief is wrong to presume that causing alarm is the same as "calculated to alarm". If merely "causing alarm" were sufficient to arrest, then the entire constitutional guarantee of bearing arms in Texas could be voided by anyone claiming that they were "alarmed" by seeing someone bearing arms.

The quote in newswest9.com may be taken out of context, but he seems to imply that checking someone out is the same as arresting them:

"This is the issue that they don't want to address that we have to
address," Chief Jones said. "When we get a call about a person with a
gun, do we ignore it? Walking down the street? They're alluding to the
fact that we don't have any right to make contact to them because
they're not doing anything wrong. I beg to differ with them."

No one is saying that the police cannot drive by someone that a citizen finds suspicious, or talk to them. Police know that criminals almost never openly carry guns, and that those who are working to restore second amendment rights often do. We can contrast what happened in Andrews with what recently happened in Fond du Lac Wisconsin:

“It was basically just a unique display of (the gun owners’) right to
bear arms under the state’s open carry law and the U.S. Constitution,”
Meyer said. “In a similar incident in Appleton, police engaged the
individuals and caused additional turmoil. Our police observed them,
making sure that they weren’t a threat to public safety.”

It is difficult to square Chief Jones assurance that he supports the First, second,fourth and fifth amendments, with Mr. Keoughan's arrest:

"I can't emphasize enough that we support their right," he said.

The police, after determining that Mr. Keoughan was exercising his rights, did not have to arrest him. In fact, it appears that they arrested him without legal cause to do so.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

The well known and brilliant law professor, Eugene Volokh, has partnered with the Washington Post to place the Volokh Conspiracy, a well argued and written blog that I have often cited, under the Washington Post website.

And there’s a wide middle zone of people, on this subject and on others,
who are open to hearing arguments — and facts — and who might be swayed
by them. (I was one myself, before I started researching gun issues
seriously in the mid-1990s.) But to reach those people, you have to be
in the publications they read, with the credentials they respect, both
our preexisting academic credentials and the credential of affiliation
with the Washington Post.

I wish Professor Volokh the best of luck with his latest venture. From wikipedia:

A few days ago, I wrote about a modest reform to stop the waste of valuable resources occurring at Indiana gun turn in programs, also known as "buy backs". "Buy backs" is a misnomer, as the guns were never owned by the people who are buying them in the programs. The reform was a simple one: as tax dollars are expended in these turn in programs, instead of the valuable assets that are collected being destroyed as a primitive symbolic measure, once the guns have been taken off the streets, they should be sold to legal dealers. This returns them to lawful channels of commerce, with the proceeds then used to benefit the community. The purpose of the reform was clearly stated by the proponent, Senator Jim Tomes:

The guns that are still usable will be auctioned off and the money,
minus the taxes, will be given back to the department that resold the
guns. The departments can use the money to buy ammunition, vests,
weapons or otherwise enhance public safety.

As I looked for other coverage of the reform, I saw misleading headline after misleading headline. Most of the Indiana media covering the reform claimed that it was a "ban" on gun "buy backs". But that simply was not true. There would be no "ban" on "buy backs". The only ban would be on the destruction of valuable assets. Here are some examples:

A bill to prevent local governments from holding gun buy-back programs
is on its way to the state Senate. The sponsor of the bill says he can't
understand why police would want to destroy guns that have significant
value and could be resold.

What this shows is the incestuous relationships in the old media, and the over reliance on the AP to decide what "spin" to put on an article. Though most of the articles go on to describe the actual bill as merely a ban on the destruction of valuable guns, the idea that this somehow "bans" cities from doing "buy backs" has already been stated.

Of course, when guns are sold to lawful collectors, instead of destroyed for symbolic purposes, it destroys the underlying "guns are bad" message instead.

COLUMBUS
— School districts that designate teachers and other personnel to
carry hidden firearms must undergo pretraining and a psychological
assessment after the fact if they use the weapon under a bill that
passed the House with bipartisan support Wednesday.

Saturday, January 25, 2014

It appears that people with concealed weapon permits in South Carolina will now have an easier time of finding a place to have dinner. South Carolina is just a signature away from joining the vast majority of states that do not prevent people with gun permits from bringing their personal defensive firearms into restaurants that serve alcohol. The legislation prohibits people carrying legal weapons from consuming alcohol in the establishments. Governor Nikki Haley seems likely to sign the bill, which passed the house with an overwhelming 90 to 18 majority. From greenvilleonline.com:

As shown in the map above, nearly all states allow permit holders to carry weapons in restaurants. South Carolina is one of the last three holdouts, with only Louisiana and North Dakota still prohibiting the practice. Restaurant carry passed the Louisiana House 64-24 last year.

In an amusing nod to federalism and the vagaries of legislative action, Montana only allows restaurant carry if the firearm is carried openly; Alaska and Arizona only allow the practice if the firearm is concealed.

A bill has been introduced in the South Carolina legislature -- bill S. 115 -- that would implement what is known in gun rights circles as "Constitutional carry."
The term refers to the right to carry a gun either openly or concealed
without a state permit, as delineated by the U.S. Constitution.

MILTON-FREEWATER The East End
Rod & Gun Club’s application to continue operations was approved by
the Umatilla County Planning Commission Thursday night, but a number of
restrictions were placed on its activities.

The
Milton-Freewater club, which has about 800 members, has operated a
shooting range since 1994 on 85 acres of leased property, but was never
officially approved by the county.

About 6:40 Monday evening, deputies responded to a residence on Air
Blanc Circle in reference to a shots fired complaint. Deputies said
Dvorak, who was known to the victim, came over to the home and
attempted to rob the victim at gunpoint.

The victim pulled his firearm in self-defense and was able to prevent the robbery.

USA --(Ammoland.com)-
On December 20, 2013, Gabriel Drennen’s lengthy legal odyssey,
following the self-defense killing of Leroy R. Hoster, came to an end
when Fremont County, Wyo., District Court Judge Norman E. Young signed
an order dismissing the remaining charges against him.

The move followed an October 1st decision from the Wyoming Supreme Court that overturned
Drennen’s initial conviction for first degree murder. Drennen’s case,
supported by NRA, is important precedent in ensuring Wyomingites are
able confidently to exercise their right to self-defense.

Drennen’s initial conviction for murder evolved from a dispute with
Hoster, who was a tenant on trailer park property Drennen owned. On May
2, 2010, Drennen went to the trailer Hoster had been staying at to post “no trespassing”
signs, following Hoster’s failure to pay lot fees. While Drennen was
putting up the signs, an unarmed Hoster attacked him, throwing the
landlord off the trailer’s porch and over a fence, and causing Drennen’s
head to strike the ground. During the attack Hoster threatened, “I’ll Kill you, you son of a b**ch.”
As Hoster was coming over the fence to continue the assault, Drennen
drew a 9mm pistol and fired at his assailant, killing him. Following a
trial, a jury found Drennen guilty of first-degree murder and assault
and battery. Drennen was sentenced to life in prison.

I have read through a number of accounts of Lobby Day at the Virginia Capitol at Richmond on 20 January. I was drawn to study the event because of an account on wvtf public radio. The account on wvtf said that competing crowds of people were lobbying in favor of second amendment rights and those who wish to restrict those rights, occurred on Tuesday. I think the reporter simply got the day wrong, because all of the other coverage that I could find indicated the events occurred on Monday, 20 January, 2014.

The orientation of the reporter for public radio was clear from sentences such as this one:

Organizers of a rally in support of unfettered gun ownership thought it
ridiculous that someone could lose their second amendment rights for
slapping their spouse around.

The above had no attribution and no quotes, and no acknowledgement of the federal Lautenberg amendment, which already takes away second amendment rights for mere accusations of "violence" which may not involve physical contact.

Observers indicated several hundred pro second amendment supporters, and somewhat lower numbers of those who wish to increase government restrictions on guns. Many observers noted that the number of second amendment supporters wearing "Guns Save Lives" stickers were down from previous years. Others noted that those who wished for more government controls were able to bus in several loads of young people to bolster their numbers. There were more second amendment supporters in the morning, and most of those supporting more restrictive legislation appeared in the afternoon. Here is a picture reported to be of about one third of the second amendment supporters:

In terms of attendance, I saw about 400+ people wearing GUNS SAVE LIVES stickers and I saw Josh Horwitz of the CSGV doing an interview and counted just under 20 people cloistered in a conference room wearing BACKGROUND CHECKS SAVE LIVES stickers.

I suspect that observation was made early in the day before the buses full of young people supporting more legislation showed up. From dailypress.com:

Gun-rights activists took the morning shift, with several hundred
gathering on the Capitol grounds before heading inside to lobby state
legislators. Gun-control advocates gathered on the same spot several
hours later in a slightly smaller but much younger and more diverse
group.

The dailypress reported that those favoring more government power were feeling optimistic because of Democrat Terry McAuliffe winning the governors mansion:

The gun-control event drew McAuliffe's wife, Dorothy, as well as Lt.
Gov. Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring. Both men are
Democrats, as is McAuliffe.

Brian Moran, McAuliffe's choice for
public safety secretary, told attendees they "now have a champion in the
governor's office." He predicted a turning tide on gun issues, and
event organizers said this rally was their largest in 21 years.

Still,
Northam said he didn't expect a universal background check bill to pass
this year. But it's coming, he said, particularly since young people
seem to favor the change.

There are likely many factors to explain why the number of those in favor of the second amendment were at a low, though still outnumbering those pushing for more government power, which were at a 21 year high.

I would say that the insane "gun free school" policies caused the school to go on lockdown, not a veteran peacefully exercising his constitutional rights. Otherwise the article is fairly good at explaining what happened.

ANDREWS - A fierce debate is heating up again in Andrews. A gun rights
group is upset because one of their members was arrested on Wednesday
afternoon after carrying around his rifle in public. The whole thing
caused a nearby school to go on lockdown.

(snip)

"He was just calmly walking," Arthur said. "You wouldn't think anything of it unless he didn't have a gun."

But moments later, the middle school was put on lockdown and Arthur said Keoughan was surrounded by police.

He was eventually arrested. Another viewer took a picture as it happened.

The
State of Oklahoma passed its Open Carry Law in early 2012, one year
prior to the Mississippi law. By all appearances it would seem that
Oklahoma did an outstanding job in looking ahead with a proactive plan
to limit challenges for the future. Sadly, Mississippi’s approach has
been more reactive than proactive.

Shortly after the Oklahoma legislative session
ended, law enforcement authorities began to develop plans to deal with
their new open carry law. Stories began to surface as early as a month
or so following the end of the session and up to the effective date of
the law (November 1, 2012).

May 16, 2012, News 9 in Norman, Oklahoma
Police have already developed a training plan for officers and
dispatchers on how to respond to complaints related to the new law that
will be effective November 1, 2012.

October 20, 2012, KRMG Radio Reported that the new law set to become effective on November 1st, caused Michael Konshak of Bixby Police Department to identify the need for dispatcher training. “That’s
the dispatchers who are going to be taking the 911 calls for a man with
a gun,” Konshak said. “It’s equally critical that law enforcement
personal really understand the entire self-defense pact inside and
out. We’re the one’s who are responsible for enforcing those laws.” He said it is important to see that officers and dispatchers are properly trained.

October 31, 2012. According to American City and County on the internet

The homeowner fired at the man and then noticed a truck parked in the
dark near the roadway, which he believed belonged to the man so he got
in the truck and took the keys out of the ignition to prevent him from
leaving the scene. The man confronted the homeowner and disarmed him,
assaulting him with the rifle, authorities said.

The homeowners son saw the man raising the rifle and, fearing the man
was about to shoot his father, shot the suspect, killing him instantly.

Representative Jim Lucas, R-Seymore, has introduced a bill to reform Indiana law that restricts self defense in or near schools. The bill HB1048, aims to do a number of things, such as allow people to possess firearms that are locked in vehicles on school property, change the definition of school property for firearms offenses to the actual buildings rather than all the real estate owned by the school, and perhaps most interestingly, decriminalize "roaming school zones".

What are "roaming school zones", you might ask?

In 2013, the Indiana legislature passed a bill dealing with school safety. It included a definition of a school to include:

Sec. 2. A person who knowingly orintentionally possesses a firearm:(1) in or on school property; or(2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function; or(3) (2) on a school bus;commits a Class D Level 6 felony.

You can see the problem. A class from a school takes a field trip to a zoo. The zoo is being used for a "school function". Anyone now at the zoo with a firearm has just committed a felony, even though they did nothing. The "school zone" moved around them.

I would like to believe that such a law would not pass constitutional muster, but I recall some reports of proposals to make roaming gun free zones around the president in 2009, so I might be premature to think so.

HB1048 would change the definition to require exclusive use by the school; that the property not be accessible to the general public; and signage to inform people that the area is now a gun free zone.

Sec. 3. For purposes of section 2(2) of this chapter,property that is not school property is being used by a school fora school function if:

(1) the property is being used exclusively by the school for theschool function;

(2) the property is not accessible to the general public duringthe school function; and

(3) a notice conspicuously posted at each entrance to theproperty states that the property is being used by the schoolfor a school function.

It is nice to see a legislator taking the lead to introduce required reforms. The "roaming school zone" is being described as a legislative mistake. I hope that they are able to pass the reform needed to correct it.

A 63-year-old man shot a burglary suspect in the leg about
9:15 p.m. Tuesday night when he returned to his home in the 6900 block
of Puget Beach Road and found the intruder, according to the Thurston
County Sheriff's Office.

The man had returned to his home with his
wife, and armed himself with a handgun when he heard noises on the
second floor of his home, Thurston County Sheriff's Lt. Greg Elwin said.

When
the homeowner confronted the burglar at the top of the stairs, the
suspect either attempted to assault, or did assault the homeowner, Elwin
said. The homeowner fired a single shot which struck the suspect in the
thigh, Elwin added.

Patients obtaining medical marijuana in Illinois will give up their state-recognized right to own guns if a proposal by the Illinois Department of Public Health is approved, the Chicago Tribune reported Tuesday.
“The plan outlines how adults who have any of 41 specified medical
conditions, such as cancer, AIDS or complex regional pain syndrome, may
apply to get a patient registry identification card to purchase medical
pot,” the report explains.

That means rather than hold substance abusers accountable for
harming others while under the influence, sick and vulnerable people in
physically weakened conditions will be unable to defend themselves at
all times.

The National Rifle Association had no position, deferring to federal law and the courts. But the issue goes beyond Illinois. Colorado,
where recreational marijuana is now legal, creates the same condition
where people must choose between pot and guns if they wish to remain
“legal.”

“Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any
depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled
substance?” ATF’s Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record
asks, and if the answer is “Yes,” a sale may not proceed. Lying about
that is a felony, and state laws notwithstanding, the federal
government’s position is clear:

Senator Jim Tomes, R - Wadesville, has introduced a bill in the Indiana Legislature that prevents further waste in gun turn in events, so called "buy backs". The guns were never owned by the people purchasing them, so "buy back" is a loaded misnomer. Kentucky appears to be the first state to pass such reform legislation, in 1998. The Indiana bill seems loosely based on a similar Arizona reform passed last year. North Carolina is the latest in a number of states that have passed the money saving measure, passing its bill last August. On the proposed Indiana Bill, Senator Tomes finds it difficult to see how anyone would object. From TheStateHouseFile.com:

“I don’t see why anyone would object to this because it benefits everyone involved,” Tomes said.

Currently, guns that are obtained by law enforcement officials are
destroyed and used as scrap metal. If Senate Bill 229 becomes law, local
officials could only destroy guns that have a serial number that is
indecipherable. Those guns can then be taken back to labs for
investigation and used as scrap metal.

Guns that are determined as being defective can only be sold to FFL members.

The guns that are still usable will be auctioned off and the money,
minus the taxes, will be given back to the department that resold the
guns. The departments can use the money to buy ammunition, vests,
weapons or otherwise enhance public safety.

This bill is an improvement over the Arizona reform in that firearms that are not working can be salvaged for parts by being sold to federal firearms license (FFL) holders. Often the parts from older firearms are worth more after being pieced out than the firearm is worth as a unit. Some companies specialize in brokering deals for firearms between police departments and large gun dealers. Some states conduct auctions of guns collected, as do some individual departments.

The Indiana Senate Judiciary committee passed the bill by 6-2. The North Carolina bill passed by large margins: 98 to 16 in the House, and 48 to 1 in the Senate. It was signed into law by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Thad Cochran,
R-Miss., are backing legislation that would allow persons with
state-issued conceal carry permits to use them in other states with
conceal carry laws.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014
(S.1908) is intended to defend the Second Amendment rights of
individuals with conceal carry permits, allowing them to carry those
privileges from their home state to other states that also have conceal
carry laws.

“I am strongly committed to upholding Americans’ constitutional right
to keep and bear arms,” Wicker said. “This legislation would ensure
this right is not limited to the state where the concealed carry permit
was issued. It responsibly grants legal gun owners the same freedom in
states with concealed carry laws.”

“Second amendment rights
shouldn’t stop at the state line,” Cochran said. “It makes sense to
allow law-abiding gun owners to take their concealed permit privileges
with them to states that also allow conceal carry permits.”
While extending concealed carry privileges, the legislation
recognizes state’s rights and does not provide for a national concealed
carry permit.

Wicker and Cochran, both members of the
Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, were among 57 Senators who earlier
this year voted in favor of an amendment comparable to this
legislation. In addition, the Mississippi Senators cosponsored similar
legislation in the 112th Congress.

The oral arguments in the case of Abramski v. United States, where the Supreme Court is determining if the ATF can change the definition of what is a "straw buyer" without a change in the statute, and whether a person who transfers a firearm to someone who can legally posses the firearm is involved in a "straw purchase". The ATF had one interpretation of the statute from the implementation of the law in 1968 until 1994, 26 years later. Then they started a different interpretation of the law under the Clinton regime.

The arguments did not seem to go well for the government, as several of the justices focused on the ATF change in interpretation of the law, which occurred in 1994, without a change in the statute. From Mr. Dietz, the defendants attorney:

Another point, Your Honors, is that the

21 plain text interpretation of the statute is one that the

22 agency, ATF, had adopted initially. In 1979, the Agency

23 sent a circular to gun dealers that took the -- the

24 precise position that -- that Petitioner is taking here,

25 which is that a purchase of a gun for another lawful gun

1 owner is permissible. And in doing so, the -- the

2 Agency said that that was an interpretation of the text

3 of the Gun Control Act.

Justice Roberts Questioning the Government's lawyer, Mr. Palmore:

17 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Where in the Act

18 does -- is the basis for the requirement on the form?

19 The form says, you know, if you're not the actual,

20 you're buying for somebody else. Where is that in the21 statute?

22 MR. PALMORE: That is ATF's reasonable

23 interpretation of the statute and I was just going to

24 get to that.

25 JUSTICE SCALIA: Its current one. It used

1 to have a different one.

2 MR. PALMORE: That's the current one, and

3 it's been consistent for the last 20 years, Justice

4 Scalia.

Justice Ginsburg, a little later:

23 JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Palmore, when the

24 Agency changed its view in 1994, there was no change in

25 the statutory text, was there?

1 MR. PALMORE:There was not, Justice

2 Ginsburg.

3 JUSTICE GINSBURG: And at that time, the

4 interpretation was that you committed the offense if you

5 sold -- if the person, the true buyer, was an

6 unlawful -- a person to whom firearms could not be sold.

7 But if you -- if the ultimate possessor was a lawful

8 possessor, then there was no liability.

9 So the -- the statute has to be open, at

10 least, to either interpretation, no change in the words.

11 The Agency read it one way, and then later changed its

12 mind and read it the other way.

A little later, from Chief Justice Roberts:

22 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, but there

23 wasn't -- there wasn't a strong lobby in Congress saying

24 we're the group that supports Ponzi schemes, so maybe it

25 makes more sense to have a broad construction of that

1 provision. This language is fought over tooth and nail

2 by people on the, you know, gun control side and the gun

3 ownership side. And to say -- you look at it and say

4 well, the purpose is this, even though there's no words

5 in the statute that have anything to do with straw

6 purchasers, I think, is very problematic.

Several other issues were brought up in the case, including questions as to the utility of the regulation when it is legal to sell to a private purchaser immediately after the purchase, as long as no money changed hands before, that gifts to private parties are also perfectly legal, and other arguments make me believe that the defense ended with an edge in the oral arguments.

We will not know for certain until the written decisions come out, and that may not be until June. Oral arguments are not a great predictor of how a decision will finally be rendered, but I find the point that ATF interpreted the law both ways to be quite interesting and helpful to the defense.

My interpretation is that the ATF changed their interpretation because their boss, President Clinton, was extremely anti-second amendment rights, and pushed for as many restrictions as he could possibly obtain. Whether he went beyond what this court will allow remains to be seen.

At 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, SWAT agents showed up at Mark Witaschek’s D.C. home
to execute a search warrant for “firearms and ammunition … gun cleaning
equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts.”

- See more at:
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/aggressive-swat-team-in-full-body-armor-raids-home-confiscates-one-dud-shell-casing-federal-charges-laid_012014#sthash.zuCDudbO.dpuf

At 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, SWAT agents showed up at Mark Witaschek’s D.C. home
to execute a search warrant for “firearms and ammunition … gun cleaning
equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts.”

Witaschek’s 14-year-old daughter answered the door and let about 30 officers, who were in full tactical gear, inside.

The officers immediately charged upstairs and
demanded that Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, surrender,
face-down. Both were handcuffed.

Witaschek told The Washington Times about the raid. His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the officers arrived:

- See more at:
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/aggressive-swat-team-in-full-body-armor-raids-home-confiscates-one-dud-shell-casing-federal-charges-laid_012014#sthash.zuCDudbO.dpuf

At 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, SWAT agents showed up at Mark Witaschek’s D.C. home
to execute a search warrant for “firearms and ammunition … gun cleaning
equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts.”

Witaschek’s 14-year-old daughter answered the door and let about 30 officers, who were in full tactical gear, inside.

The officers immediately charged upstairs and
demanded that Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, surrender,
face-down. Both were handcuffed.

Witaschek told The Washington Times about the raid. His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the officers arrived:

- See more at:
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/aggressive-swat-team-in-full-body-armor-raids-home-confiscates-one-dud-shell-casing-federal-charges-laid_012014#sthash.zuCDudbO.dpuf

At 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, SWAT agents showed up at Mark Witaschek’s D.C. home
to execute a search warrant for “firearms and ammunition … gun cleaning
equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts.”

Witaschek’s 14-year-old daughter answered the door and let about 30 officers, who were in full tactical gear, inside.

The officers immediately charged upstairs and
demanded that Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, surrender,
face-down. Both were handcuffed.

Witaschek told The Washington Times about the raid. His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the officers arrived:

“They used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door
and pull him out of the shower, naked. The police put all the children
together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them
crying, not knowing what was happening.”

The agents tore through Witaschek’s house for two hours. He said
“They tossed the place,” and estimated the damage to his home at
$10,000.
Four items were confiscated by the police, as written on the warrant:

“One live round of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition,” which
was an inoperable shell that misfired during a hunt years earlier.
Witaschek had kept it as a souvenir.
“One handgun holster” was found, which is perfectly legal.
“One expended round of .270 caliber ammunition,” which was a spent brass casing.
The police uncovered “one box of Knight bullets for reloading.” These
are actually not for reloading, but are used in antique-replica,
single-shot, muzzle-loading rifles.

This wasn’t the first time Witaschek’s home was searched. A month
earlier, he allowed members of the “Gun Recovery Unit” to search without
a warrant because he thought he had nothing to hide, but items were
found and seized on that visit too, as reported by The Washington Times:

After about an hour and a half, the police found one box
of Winchester .40 caliber ammunition, one gun-cleaning kit (fully legal)
and a Civil War-era Colt antique revolver that Mr. Witaschek kept on
his office desk. The police seized the Colt even though antique firearms
are legal and do not have to be registered.

The police based both searches on accusations made by Witaschek’s
estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a
temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with
a gun – a claim a judge found to be without merit.
- See more at:
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/aggressive-swat-team-in-full-body-armor-raids-home-confiscates-one-dud-shell-casing-federal-charges-laid_012014#sthash.zuCDudbO.dpuf

Subscribe To Gun Watch

Background

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- Thomas Jefferson

Syndicated columnist Charley Reese (1937-2013): "Gun control by definition affects only honest people. When a politician tells you he wants to forbid you from owning a firearm or force you to get a license, he is telling you he doesn’t trust you. That’s an insult. ... Gun control is not about guns or crime. It is about an elite that fears and despises the common people."

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles -- Jeff Cooper (1920-2006)

Note for non-American readers: Crime reports from America which describe an offender just as a "teen" or "teenager" almost invariably mean a BLACK teenager.

We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

How much do you know about Trayvon Martin? Did you recognize him in the picture above? If not you may need to know more about him. It's all here (Backups here and here)

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

After all the serious stuff here, maybe we need a funny picture of a cantankerous cat